This sign says it all

[Spider]

A sign made by a member of the ignorati that doesn't know what socialism is.

Its not exactly a new screw up. They've been doing this for years.

[JDHURF]

ignorati

I like that.

[Boris Johnson]

[Stratego]

In business no one is expected to invest in a failing company. It's common knowledge that the best course of action is to drop the failing companies and put your money behind the successful ones.

It's astonishing that people understand that on the micro-economics level, but can't grasp the concept when it's applied on the macro level to the whole nation. Why invest money on a failing portion of the population when you can put your money behind the successful portion? A Romney presidency will drop the falling portion of the population like a sack of hot potatoes, ensuring the successful portion will have more room to succeed.

[Boris Johnson]

[Mr.Bill]

Republicans have been all for subsidies and bailouts of industries in the past, and there's NO reason to believe it'd be any different with Romney as president.. Last year the Republicans in Congress shot-down a measure that would have ended $BILLIONS of subsidies to very profitable oil companies.. To imply it's only the Democrats and Obama who give money to industries is a flat out lie..

I've heard over and over from people here, and on the national stage that if Romney's president and the banks get in trouble again he'd let them fail.. That's in A #1 prime BS..

He'd bail them out, like Bush did, like Obama did, in a NY minute..

[Dylan]

[Stratego]

In Examplestan you're making the assumption that demand falls to 0 immediately and that government have to pay unemployment. In reality, the marshmallow factory will only have to cut costs to improve the situation. Some employees may even decide to start another company to facilitate the manufacturing of marshmallows. If they do, the government should cut their taxes to award their behavior.

[Stratego]

[Professor]

First off, I think that the sign is a bit disingenuous. It cherry picks both to make a point. Kind of like just counting the votes you want to count, to make your guy win.

I think that the biggest thing here is that Obama's administration intervened in business to the degree that he did. No one can argue that Romney was doing exactly what he was supposed to do - take his money and use it to generate more money (buying companies, selling companies, transforming companies, etc.). The problem is that the Obama administration (and even the Bush administration) was using government dollars to invest in private companies.

In a few circumstances, I don't have a problem with it. For instance, SBA loans. These have documented qualifications that you must meet, and anyone that meets them can get access to government money or contracts.

The government should not, however, spin off one-time deals with companies. They should not do bail outs, support TBTF companies, or other types of deals like this.